BACKGROUND: Different brands of volume-targeted modes may vary the location of tidal volume (V T ) monitoring and whether peak inspiratory pressure is adjusted based on inspiratory, expiratory , or leak-compensated V T . These variables may result in different levels of support provided to patients, especially when an endotracheal tube (ETT) leak is present. We hypothesized that there would be no differences in gas exchange, triggering, or work of breathing between volume-targeted modes of 3 different brands of equipment in a surfactant-deficient, spontaneously breathing animal model with and without an ETT leak. METHODS: Twelve rabbits (mean ؎ SD 1.61 ؎ 0.20 kg) were sedated, anesthetized, intubated, lavaged with 0.9% saline solution, and randomized in a crossover design so that each animal was supported by 3 different volume-targeted modes at identical settings with and without an ETT leak. After 30 min, arterial blood gas, V T , and esophageal and airway pressure were recorded for each condition, and pressure-rate product and percentage of successfully triggered breaths were calculated. RESULTS: Gas exchange and the pressure-rate product were not different between the ventilators in the absence of an ETT leak. When an ETT leak was introduced, volume-guarantee modes allowed a higher percentage of triggered breaths and peak inspiratory pressure, which resulted in higher minute ventilation, pH, and lower P aCO 2 than the pressure-regulated volume control mode (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: When a moderate ETT leak was present, volume-targeted modes that used proximal V T monitoring and triggering with adaptive leak compensation capabilities appeared more effective in providing ventilation support than did a ventilator that used measurements obtained from the back at the ventilator and does not have leak compensation.
BACKGROUND: There is evidence that ventilator weaning protocols provide benefit to children receiving mechanical ventilation, but many protocols do not include explicit instructions for decreasing ventilator support from maximal settings. We evaluated care provider opinions on ventilator weaning recommendations made by a computerized decision support tool. METHODS: Recommendations for ventilator adjustment were generated using a computerized decision support tool based on the ARDSNet protocol using data from children with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure admitted to the pediatric ICU (PICU). Attending physicians, fellows, nurse practitioners, and respiratory therapists (RTs) caring for these patients answered a brief survey to assess whether recommendations were reasonable and whether the practitioner believed they could be implemented. RESULTS: RTs completed 99 surveys and ICU providers completed 96 surveys based on data from 10 patients. RTs and ICU providers found 63.9% and 65.3% of recommendations reasonable, respectively. There were 5 instances of disagreement between RTs and ICU providers. The percent of recommendations that RTs thought could be implemented was 29.9%, whereas this figure for ICU providers was 26.3%, with 4 instances of disagreement. Free-text responses indicated that many RTs and ICU providers were concerned about disrupting current patient stability and low tidal volumes. CONCLUSIONS: On initial evaluation, the decision support tool did not appear to be highly acceptable to RTs and ICU providers in our setting because recommendations were rarely implemented. In addition, acceptability did not increase over time as patients generally improved. Most respondents preferred to make no ventilator changes and felt the recommendations were too aggressive. The notable barrier to use was a perception of potential patient instability with weaning.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.